Keele University

About: Keele University is a education organization based out in Newcastle-under-Lyme, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Stars. The organization has 11318 authors who have published 26323 publications receiving 894671 citations. The organization is also known as: Keele University.

The importance of music to adolescents

Abstract: Aims. The study aims to determine the importance of music to adolescents in England, and investigates why they listen to and perform music. Sample. A total of 2465 adolescents (1149 males; 1266 females; 50 participants did not state their sex) between 13 and 14 years of age who were attending Year 9 at one of 22 secondary schools in the North Staffordshire region of England. Method. A questionnaire asked participants (a) about their degree of involvement with musical activities; (b) to rate the importance of music relative to other activities; and (c) to rate the importance of several factors that might determine why they and other people of their age and sex might listen to/perform pop and classical music. Results. Responses indicated that i) over 50% of respondents either played an instrument currently or had played regularly before giving up, and the sample listened to music for an average of 2.45 hours per day; ii) listening to music was preferred to other indoor activities but not to outdoor activities; iii) listening to/playing pop music has different perceived benefits to listening to/ playing classical music; iv) responses to suggested reasons for listening to music could be grouped into three factors; and v) responses to suggested reasons for playing music could be grouped into four factors. Conclusions. These results indicate that music is important to adolescents, and that this is because it allows them to (a) portray an ‘ image’ to the outside world and (b) satisfy their emotional needs.

A systematic review of systematic review process research in software engineering

Abstract: Context: Many researchers adopting systematic reviews (SRs) have also published papers discussing problems with the SR methodology and suggestions for improving it. Since guidelines for SRs in software engineering (SE) were last updated in 2007, we believe it is time to investigate whether the guidelines need to be amended in the light of recent research. Objective: To identify, evaluate and synthesize research published by software engineering researchers concerning their experiences of performing SRs and their proposals for improving the SR process. Method: We undertook a systematic review of papers reporting experiences of undertaking SRs and/or discussing techniques that could be used to improve the SR process. Studies were classified with respect to the stage in the SR process they addressed, whether they related to education or problems faced by novices and whether they proposed the use of textual analysis tools. Results: We identified 68 papers reporting 63 unique studies published in SE conferences and journals between 2005 and mid-2012. The most common criticisms of SRs were that they take a long time, that SE digital libraries are not appropriate for broad literature searches and that assessing the quality of empirical studies of different types is difficult. Conclusion: We recommend removing advice to use structured questions to construct search strings and including advice to use a quasi-gold standard based on a limited manual search to assist the construction of search stings and evaluation of the search process. Textual analysis tools are likely to be useful for inclusion/exclusion decisions and search string construction but require more stringent evaluation. SE researchers would benefit from tools to manage the SR process but existing tools need independent validation. Quality assessment of studies using a variety of empirical methods remains a major problem.

A consensus approach toward the standardization of back pain definitions for use in prevalence studies

Abstract: A modified Delphi study conducted with 28 experts in back pain research from 12 countries. OBJECTIVE. To identify standardized definitions of low back pain that could be consistently used by investigators in prevalence studies to provide comparable data. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. Differences in the definition of back pain prevalence in population studies lead to heterogeneity in study findings, and limitations or impossibilities in comparing or summarizing prevalence figures from different studies. METHODS. Back pain definitions were identified from 51 articles reporting population-based prevalence studies, and dissected into 77 items documenting 7 elements. These items were submitted to a panel of experts for rating and reduction, in 3 rounds (participation: 76%). Preliminary results were presented and discussed during the Amsterdam Forum VIII for Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain, compared with scientific evidence and confirmed and fine-tuned by the panel in a fourth round and the preparation of the current article. RESULTS. Two definitions were agreed on a minimal definition (with 1 question covering site of low back pain, symptoms observed, and time frame of the measure, and a second question on severity of low back pain) and an optimal definition that is made from the minimal definition and add-ons (covering frequency and duration of symptoms, an additional measure of severity, sciatica, and exclusions) that can be adapted to different needs. CONCLUSION. These definitions provide standards that may improve future comparisons of low back pain prevalence figures by person, place and time characteristics, and offer opportunities for statistical summaries.